[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V10 15/18] kvm : Paravirtual ticketlocks support for linux guests running on KVM hypervisor
- To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 20:50:13 +0530
- Cc: jeremy@xxxxxxxx, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, drjones@xxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hpa@xxxxxxxxx, stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, agraf@xxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, habanero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ouyang@xxxxxxxxxxx, avi.kivity@xxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, chegu_vinod@xxxxxx, mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, srivatsa.vaddagiri@xxxxxxxxx, pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:27:01 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 07/17/2013 08:25 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 07/17/2013 08:14 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 07:43:01PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 07/17/2013 06:55 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 06:25:05PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 07/17/2013 06:15 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 03:35:37PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Instead of halt we started with a sleep hypercall in those
versions. Changed to halt() once Avi suggested to reuse
existing sleep.
If we use older hypercall with few changes like below:
kvm_pv_wait_for_kick_op(flags, vcpu, w->lock )
{
// a0 reserved for flags
if (!w->lock)
return;
DEFINE_WAIT
...
end_wait
}
How would this help if NMI takes lock in critical section. The
thing
that may happen is that lock_waiting->want may have NMI lock
value, but
lock_waiting->lock will point to non NMI lock. Setting of want
and lock
have to be atomic.
True. so we are here
non NMI lock(a)
w->lock = NULL;
smp_wmb();
w->want = want;
NMI
<---------------------
NMI lock(b)
w->lock = NULL;
smp_wmb();
w->want = want;
smp_wmb();
w->lock = lock;
---------------------->
smp_wmb();
w->lock = lock;
so how about fixing like this?
again:
w->lock = NULL;
smp_wmb();
w->want = want;
smp_wmb();
w->lock = lock;
if (!lock || w->want != want) goto again;
NMI can happen after the if() but before halt and the same situation
we are trying to prevent with IRQs will occur.
True, we can not fix that. I thought to fix the inconsistency of
lock,want pair.
But NMI could happen after the first OR condition also.
/me thinks again
lock_spinning() can check that it is called in nmi context and bail
out.
Good point.
I think we can check for even irq context and bailout so that in irq
context we continue spinning instead of slowpath. no ?
That will happen much more often and irq context is no a problem anyway.
Yes. It is not a problem. But my idea was to not to enter slowpath lock
during irq processing. Do you think that is a good idea?
I 'll now experiment how often we enter slowpath in irq context.
With dbench 1.5x run, on my 32cpu / 16core sandybridge, I saw
around 10 spinlock slowpath entered from the irq context.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
